Reading Assignments, Kids & Covid, A Biologist's Definition of "Woman," Someone's Finally Studying Vaccine Safety, and another Pfizer data dump for paid subs
(and after lots of busts, I actually found some good nuggets)
Today is quite a day and I’m currently waiting on maintenance to get to the office for a plumbing issue, so you get the benefit of a day-early post. (As if I actually follow a publishing schedule.)
As it turns out, when I tell you about the programs I make, you purchase them. So thanks for that - it’s encouraging and a good reminder that my products don’t just sit there and sell themselves. I do the work in creating really great programs, but don’t always continue marketing them.
The incredible amount of new enrollments in the past few weeks are making me extremely grateful for your support of my work in a variety of capacities - writing here, in practice, online courses, in-person courses. Thank you. I’ll keep you informed and give you reminders every once in a while for those of you who need 16 nudges before you actually purchase that thing you need, like this mini course in recovering from antibiotic use.
I’ll remind you that if you’re a chiropractor and want to hang out with me, I’ll be in St. Louis next month to teach the moveMentors Perinatal Manual Care course and you can’t miss this class. Once again, nothing like this existed, so we made our own. This isn’t a protocol or a technique, but an all-encompassing approach to caring for prenatal and postpartum patients with manual therapy.
Let’s dive in because I’m feeling all sorts of wordy today.
Kids aren’t impacted by covid in a significant way. I don’t care what your news anchors and TikTok influencers tell you. The data tells a different story. And even if they were at risk, they aren’t getting protection from the available vaccines. From The Epoch Times:
The rate of COVID-19 cases detected in children aged 5–11 was about 122 per 100,000 for the unvaccinated and over 131 per 100,000 in the vaccinated during the week ending Feb. 19. In the prior week, the rate was 248 and 244 for the unvaccinated and vaccinated respectively.
The month before, the rate was nearly 1,800 per 100,000 in unvaccinated and over 1,340 per 100,000 in the vaccinated during the week ending Jan. 15.
The CDC also tracks COVID-19 deaths among the vaccinated and unvaccinated, but omits data for ages 5-11 “due to low numbers.”
And here is a very worthwhile read from the journal Bioethics entitled “Against COVID‐19 vaccination of healthy children.” Their conclusion:
We have presented three of the most compelling arguments that might justify routine vaccination of healthy children against COVID‐19: an argument from paternalism or the best interests of children, an argument from indirect protection or the best interests of vulnerable others, and an argument from global eradication or the best interests of a global COVID‐19 public health endgame. Through sustained objections to each respective argument, we have shown that, given the present evidence regarding the disease and the available vaccines, none is ultimately sufficient to justify routine COVID‐19 vaccination of healthy children. We also elaborated two further objections specifically against mandating COVID‐19 vaccination for children: one based on ethical issues surrounding coercion and parental autonomy, and the other based on the idea that mandates would undermine potentially altruistic decisions of autonomous children to get vaccinated for the sake of others. All things considered, neither routine nor mandatory vaccination of healthy children against COVID‐19 is currently ethically justified.
Now we’re going to switch gears just a bit, and I want you to pop over and read this relatively short Substack article from Heather Heying, PhD and then return here when you’re done.
I know that you probably didn’t actually go read that, but I want you to, so go ahead and do it and then come back when you’re done.
It’s not just a biologist who thinks that there are differences between males and females. Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Ph.D., a professor in the department of Ob/Gyn and the Center for Reproductive Sciences at the University of California San Francisco, has put together the PROVES study to gather real-world data on vaccine safety, and plans to study the differences between males and females.* Per an interview posted on Children’s Health Defense:
Organized as a survey, the PROVES study seeks to gather real-world data from respondents on “vaccine safety, severity of COVID illness, health outcomes, course of recovery, and mortality in vaccinated and unvaccinated controls.”
The study is open to individuals from across the world, regardless of vaccination status.
In an interview with The Defender about her work and the study, Bhargava explained how her particular scientific background helped inform the study:
“My work focuses a lot on stress biology. In a way, viral infections are a huge stressor. Also, [I am] studying sex differences. Males and females. Their functions and physiology differ for various reasons. And when they have a particular disease, some of them can also have different outcomes. So that’s where I am.”
Sign up for the research study here if you’d like to participate.
*I actually tried to include all of these as a parenthetical addition to the above paragraph, but clearly had a lot to say and a lot to share, so here goes:
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a highly funded government agency with the capacity to determine how the population was responding to certain diseases like a novel coronavirus that had been manufactured in a lab via illegal gain-of-function research after being patented by moderna (who’d never brought a product to market until their vaccine) three years before the pandemic began (a one in three trillion chance that it was coincidence), and medical interventions like a vaccine that was also patented by moderna (even though they allegedly stole some of the intellectual property used to make that vaccine) or another shot from pfizer and another from j&j - both companies who have been completely above board in their actions (oh wait, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E showing that they have a HORRIBLE track record)?
Yes, that was all one question. And yes, I want you to click all of those links and at least skim them.
Maybe we could call it a center for disease - umm - control? Or perhaps a national institute of hmm, health? It’s so strange that we don’t have tons of money going into organizations like that from our tax dollars so that we can get reliable information from public health officials.
Oh, those organizations do exist?! But instead of informing the public on health and safety issues, they take orders from pharmaceutical giants and then make announcements to the public based on what those companies’ bottom lines require?
So how do we get info? Oh, of course, we rely on the media to tell us what’s going on in the world. But WAIT, the pharmaceutical companies literally pay for the news media via advertising and sponsorship?! Hmm.
It certainly does paint a grim picture, but I remain hopeful.
The reason why? Because you’re reading this. That means you haven’t given up on being informed. And you know I’m entirely too stubborn to give up. So let’s keep fighting for the truth, keep having open and honest conversations rather than shutting down voices we disagree with, and keep seeking answers rather than accepting spoon-fed lies.
And another reason why I remain hopeful is because even though our legal system is flawed (hopefully you read that substack I shared last week about capture of the law - yikes), we are seeing some wins in the realm of reasonableness.
For example, to date, no religious exemptions filed by Navy servicemembers in relation to the vaccine mandate put in place last August have been approved despite requests from 3,320 active-duty and 864 reserve members.
BUT, a judge just blocked the vaccine mandate for the whole Navy. According to the Epoch Times:
The new ruling means “anyone in the U.S. Navy whose religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate was denied is now protected from any sort of punishment or involuntary separation, things like that,” said Mike Berry, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute, which represents the plaintiffs in the case.
If a vaccine was going to save the world (not just hypothetically; I mean if there was actual evidence that it would do so) without harming you, I’d still want you to have the choice to accept or refuse. Because choice is better than no choice. And if you’re not the one making the choice, then your power belongs with someone else rather than with you.
Now, for paid subscribers, I’ll continue with a little Pfizer data dump. Because we’re relying on independent researchers to actually track the outcomes of the vaccination campaign since our health agencies refuse to do it.
But as a teaser for those of you who aren’t paid subscribers, this is the BS I’m sifting through:
Why, yes, those are, in fact, redacted safety data graphs in a government-ordered data release. Still putting your trust in Pfizer? (The image is clickable if you want to read through some interesting things about Luciferase.)